alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020390EN.01003201.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — BASF v Commission

(Case T-472/19) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing omega-3 acid ethyl esters - Variation of the terms of the authorisation - First paragraph of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2020/C 390/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Wright, Barrister, and H. Boland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 4336 final of 6 June 2019 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing ‘Omega-3 acid ethyl esters’ for oral use in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BASF AS to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BASF AS to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
[No. 10180.

Department Two.

June 22, 1912.]

#### Fred Hummel, *Respondent,*v. C. H. Peterson *et al., Appellants.**1*

Adjoining Landowners—Lateral Support—Damages. Damages may be recovered for the removal of lateral support by an excavation made by an adjoining landowner regardless of negligence in making tbe excavation, in view of the provision of the state constitution that “no private property shall be taken or damaged for a public or private use without just compensation having been first made.”

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Ronald, J., entered July 3, 1911, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action in tort.

Affirmed.

*Peterson*<§• *Macbride,*for appellants.

*Daniel La/ndon, Chas. D. Fallen,*and *Jas. G. Raley,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 124 Pac. 400.

*144Morris, J.

Respondent brought this action to recover damages for the removal of lateral support. The property of both respondent and appellants is situate upon a hillside having a slope of about forty-five degrees. Appellants own the lower lot, and between their lot and that of respondent there is an ungraded thirty-foot street. It is unnecessary to state the facts, since the only question arising upon the appeal is one of law which is in no way controlled by any of the facts in the case other than those disclosing the relative location of the respective lots, the excavation on appellants’ lot, and the consequent sliding or caving in of respondent’s lot.

The appeal is taken because of the alleged error of the trial court in refusing to hold that a recovery could be based only upon the negligence of appellants in making the excavation, and in submitting the case to the jury upon the theory that, if the act of appellants in making their excavation caused the lot of respondent to slide, and the injury to respondent’s property was the proximate result of appellants’ act, then respondent could recover. That such is the correct rule of law in this state can hardly be doubted, since the decision in *Farnandis v. Great Northern R. Co.,*41 Wash. 486, 84 Pac. 18, 111 Am. St. 1027, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1086, where it was held that the liability in cases of this character does not depend upon the degree of care or skill used to prevent damages, but that the liability is the same whether the damage is caused with or without negligence; the reason being that, for any physical injury or direct invasion of property rights, damages are recoverable, under the provisions of our constitution that “no private property shall be taken or damaged for a public or private use without just compensation having been first made.” Any further discussion of the question would only be a repetition of what is said in the *Farnandis*case, which is controlling here, and for which reason the judgment is affirmed.

Fullerton, Mount, and Ellis, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-186533, 333-169926, 333-150097, 333-136316, and 333-100900) of our reports dated March 12, 2013 on (i) the consolidated financial statements of MedallionFinancial Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012 and on the selected financial ratios and other data for each of the five years in thefive-year period ended December 31, 2012, and the consolidated schedules of investments in and advances to affiliates as of and for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011; (ii) the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2012; (iii) the financial statements of Medallion Bank as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012; and (iv) the consolidatedschedules of investments as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, all of which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2012. 

/s/ WeiserMazars LLP 

New York, New York 

March 12, 2013 

 
67
OFFICE OF THE AHORNEY GENERAL OF TD(As 

AmTIN 
Hoimret.le CwHge 8. Sheppard, Pe&e e 
Eonordble OoorgoHcSh8ppard,P8geS 

In 8n8nrto~our flsst quo&&m we advlmepu 

th8ttheLaborCowl88ionerl8 notnqulredtouutha 

biluwq nor in the Stats 8oUsr Inspeotlon Rmdrs apap 

wntqplnetthe @OOOO.OOOenemlRovama Appropriatlan 

iarthereuan tit Lotion 18 of Houm Bill 552 spoultloil17 8tdi48 that mah mountaisyb8expen&aoutor 

wlleotodundor the terw of the Aotdurlnu the firstYe8r 

of its oRer8~10n. xr the 8t8tamoxlt In Jolw letter is oor- 

.wat * bdome nw on haul ln the fbnd boos not aontaln 

ally aes conwtad auTlt3g the ilrmt year ot alo opcr*tlon 

of muw Ill&l se% 

a wgrcd to yaw soaand qmstlon we are not 

mwlwd otuflalont 

Y 

onthaaot8ltuntlonC4deto~ 

whew ornot mny lab%.UtyexS*t8,uid ii mmh lidlllty 

&oo8ex%8t aothor ltrou&l~stontlm Comptrolleror 

the L8Eor Lulwloxmr~ IfyouwUladvlaeumhrtherln 

APPFIOVEL'A~~~~~, 1939 

Awh&,
Exhibit 32.1


                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant  to  Section  1350 of  Title 18 of the  United  States  Code,  the
undersigned,  Denis A.  Krusos,  the  Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive
Officer of CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended January
         31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


                                            /s/ Denis A. Krusos
                                            -------------------
                                            Denis A. Krusos
                                            Chairman of the Board and
February 26, 2004                           Chief Executive Officer
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL

Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK

Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx

VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

May 12, 2015

Jill Zimmer

Official Court Reporter

320th District Court

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 4B

Amarillo, TX 79101-2444

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Numbers: 07-15-00108-CR, 07-15-00109-CR

Trial Court Case Numbers: 68,790-D, 68,791-D

Style: Kathryn Pendleton v. The State of Texas

Dear Ms. Zimmer:

The reporter’s record in the captioned appeals was due to be filed no later than

Monday, May 4, 2015. As of this date the record has not been filed. The Court directs

the court reporter to advise the Court of the status of the reporter’s record on or before

Friday, May 22, 2015. If needed, forms for requesting an extension of time and

disclosing the status of the record are available on the Court’s website at

http://www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx or contact the clerk’s office for assistance. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 13.4 and 35.3(b).

Very truly yours,

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable Don R. Emerson (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Randall C. Sims (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Jeffrey Hill (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
#### In re EAST RIVER GAS CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

In the matter of the East River Gas Company. T. Connoly, for appellant. J. A. Garver, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
# C_2021128EN.01003501.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Herlyn and Beck v EUIPO — Brillux (B.home)

(Case T-821/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark B.home - Earlier international word mark B-Wohnen - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 128/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Sonja Herlyn (Grünwald, Germany) and Christian Beck (Grünwald) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as an Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2019 (Case R 373/2019-5), concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Brillux and, on the other hand, Ms Herlyn and Mr Beck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Sonja Herlyn and Mr Christian Beck to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Sonja Herlyn and Mr Christian Beck to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
# C_2020443EN.01002002.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions - Change in the amount of the pensions of members of the Italian national parliament - Consequential change by the European Parliament in the amount of the pensions of certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy - Competence of the authority which adopted the measure - Obligation to state reasons - Acquired rights - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 443/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi (Milan, Italy) and the 48 other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the notes of 11 April 2019 and, with respect to the applicant in Case T-465/19, of that of 11 June 2019, drawn up, in the case of each of the applicants, by the Parliament and concerning the adjustment of the amount earned by the applicants after the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action in Case T-453/19, Panusa v Parliament as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action in Case T-453/19, Panusa v Parliament as inadmissible;

| 2. | Dismisses the other actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the other actions;

| 3. | Orders Ms Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0644

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRIS LANDON LOBERG,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursu ant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Heather Perry , Distri ct Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 19 2024

06/19/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0644
# C_2020215EN.01003902.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)

(Case T-284/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KENWELL - Earlier EU word mark KENWOOD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wonder Line, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 (Case R 1351/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between De Longhi Benelux and Wonder Line.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wonder Line, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wonder Line, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed February 6, 2013.

In The 

## Quiirt ufjprat .Fiffl 3istrid uf 

## 1Jrxaa at Oattaii No. 05-11-01732-CR No. 05-11-01733-CR
HENRY CHARLES AUSTIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-72132-Q & F10-58385-Q 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang Opinion By Justice Moseley Ajury convicted Henry Charles Austin oftwo counts ofaggravated sexual assault ofachild underthe age offourteen. Thetrial court sentencedAustinto amandatory life sentence ineachcase, to run concurrently. Austin asserts two issues in this appeal, bothrelatedto thepunishmentassessed by the trial court: (1) the life sentences are excessive andconstitutedisproportionatepunishment for the crimes, and (2) the automatic life sentence imposed in trial court cause numberF1O-58385-Q is improper because the State failed to file notice ofits intent to prove a prior felony conviction and seek an automatic life sentence. Thebackground and facts ofthe case are well-known totheparties; thus, we do not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue thismemorandum opinion. TEx, R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm. Austin did not file a motion for new trial or otherwise make a timely request, objection or motion to notify the trial court about the complaints he now makes in this appeal. As a result, he failed to preserve his complaints and has waived them. See TEx. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (forerrorto be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). We overrule Austin’s two issues, and we affirm the iil urt’sjudgment 

### / / 

# / ii 

# 1/ 

# 1

If 

### / 

## /ft 

# if JIM 4óSELEY 

## / J.LJS1’ICE Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P.47 11 1732F.U05

—2—

### Qnrn-t nf ptixb 

## fiftf! Ottrirt øf 

## iJxas tt 

## Jatta JUDGMENT HENRY CHARLES AUSTIN, Appellant No. O5-1l-0l732CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. Cause No. F1O58385-Q). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Francis and Lang participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, thejudgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRrvIED.
Judgment entered February 6, 2013.

JIM MOSELEY JUSI’ ICE

## (uurt uf Apprahi 

## iFiffl! hiitnrt øf Jixaa at Oattaa 

### JUDGMENT HENRY CHARLES AUSTIN, Appellant No. 05-41-01733-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. Cause No. F10-72132-Q). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Francis and Lang participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, thejudgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered February 6, 2013.
# C_2019230EN.01002201.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 30 April 2019 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-343/19)

(2019/C 230/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant and respondent: Volkswagen AG

Question referred

Is point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be construed as the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage that is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
# C_2022095EN.01002701.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — HB v Commission

(Case T-796/19) (1)

(Public service contracts - Provision of technical assistance services to the Ukrainian authorities - Decision to reduce the amount of the contract and to recover the amounts already paid - Action for annulment and for damages - Act forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable - No arbitration clause - Inadmissibility - No heads of damage that are separable from the contract)

(2022/C 95/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

| (i) | Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid and (ii) application under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking, first, reimbursement of any amounts recovered by the Commission on the basis of that decision, together with late-payment interest, and second, symbolic compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid and (ii) application under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking, first, reimbursement of any amounts recovered by the Commission on the basis of that decision, together with late-payment interest, and second, symbolic compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as unfounded, in so far as it seeks to establish non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as unfounded, in so far as it seeks to establish non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---